i know im randomly asking but does any of you know of a method to get back into an Instagram account..? I somehow lost the account password. I would love any help you can give me!
@Lucca Francis I really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and im trying it out atm. Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
Words and ideas are wonderful in their capacity to be used to construct ‘things’ that may not even exist in any world, except in the imagination, whatever that is.
I’ve always been somewhat on the fence about the argument from contingency. Heard many debates about it but never interacted with an atheist to see if I properly understand what their argument against its validity is. Well, now I have - its currently the 216! reply post below this one. I’ll save you the trouble of reading it - the atheist needs to deny that we have knowledge of anything to say they make no claims. This is how far they have to go to deny the first premise of the argument. Since I don’t behave and live in a reality where I can’t assume safely some fundamental foundations to knowledge - this has made me way more confident that the argument supports God’s existence than before!
Hi Cameron! Can you please debate Stephen Woodford on the Kalam instead of making part two and part three of your series. He has made a response to you. It would be good if you accept his offer of the debate. I shall be looking forward to it!
There are 2 options for explaining the existence of the totality of the seemingly contingent things: (1) there’s a reason for its existence (the totality is necessary). (2) there’s no reason (the totality is brute). I’m wondering where does the argument help one prefer one option over the other ?
Well, the totality of contingent things only exists through the existence of its members. But, all of its members are contingent and can fail to exist. So, the totality must also be contingent and can fail to exist. So, the explanation of the totality must be in some external principle or cause. But, if the explanation is outside the totality of contingent things, that means that the explanation must be in terms of a necessary existent. So, the explanation of the totality of contingent things is a necessary existent.
@@anonymousperson1904 this commits the fallacy of composition. Just because all the members are contingent that doesn't mean the whole is too. All the bricks of a wall are light yet the wall is heavy.
@@philosophyofreligion "All the bricks of a wall are light yet the wall is heavy." The fallacy of composition is not always a fallacy. If all the individual bricks in the wall are red, then the whole wall will also be red. So, it is not always a fallacy. So, the question is if there is a fallacy of composition here. There is not. The reason is because if you add a whole bunch of contingent things up, you don't get a necessary thing, you get an even more contingent thing. Furthermore, the totality of contingent things exists though its members. So, the totality depends on its members. But, all of its members are contingent and can fail to exist. So, it follows that the totality itself, since it exists through and depends on its members, must also be contingent and can fail to exist.
@@anonymousperson1904 The fallacy is committed when it's claimed that it has to be the case that when a property applies to parts of a whole then it applies to the whole as well.Also,following you one can say "the weight of the wall is dependant on the weight of its bricks ,if they're light then so is it?".But that's wrong. Remember, someone who opposes the argument could just insist that the case of the totality is more like that of the weight of the wall than its color. But setting all this to one side and assuming the totality is contingent, the opponent could just opt for brute contingency rather than necessity. If it's said that it's special pleading to require an explanation for contingent individual members but not for contingent wholes, then the answer is that wholes are relevantly different than parts and if experience supports the PSR for the former than it doesn't for the latter.
It seems to me that a conjunction of contingent propositions is contingent in virtue of how a conjunctive logical operator preserves truth. If A is contingently true and B is contingently true, then considering the proposition "A & B" would yield that it too must be contingently true, inheriting the contingency from its members. If A were otherwise, A: T -> F. F & ? = F and so the whole proposition is now false. Repeat for B. By induction, if we have an indexed set of an infinite number of contingent propositions as conjuncts, the whole conjunction, again, must be contingent by replicating the above property by induction. I believe this argument is greatly flawed (see my comment to the vid) but I don't think this is it. This seems to me to be one of the least controversial premises.
Argument from Contingency: Premise 1: Every CONTINGENT thing must have a cause. Premise 2: However, existence cannot consist of only contingent things. If everything is contingent, then A's existence depends on B, B's existence depends on C, C's depends D, and so on and so forth ( either for infinity or going back to A), then nothing could have started and existed in the first place. Premise 3: Yet, here we are existing and kicking, surrounded by all kinds of other contingent things. Premise 4 - conclusion : Therefore, there has to be an independent non-contingent entity that (at least) jump-started the whole process. Aristotle called such entity the Uncaused First Cause, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Mover. Various traditions give different names for this same independent non-contingent entity (ie. the Uncaused Cause, Undesigned Designer, Uncreated Creator , Unmoved Mover, Unsustained Sustainer, Unterminated Terminator): Theos in Greek, Deus in Latin, Brahman in Sanskirt, Allah in Arabic, Alaha in Aramaic, El in Hebrew, God in English, Tuhan in Malay, Tengri in Turco-Mongol, Shang-ti in Chinese, etc. Despite the differences and variations of the world's various great religions, at the most fundamental level they all agree upon the existence of the above independent non-contingent entity. The question indeed is not whether the independent non-contingent entity (God) exist or not; the fact that we and all other contingent things exist is indeed the evidence of the existence of the independent non-contingent entity, for without the latter the contingent entities would not have existed in the first place. But the question is rather " how is the nature and the attribute of such independent non-contingent entity and how does such entity manifest and relate to the contingent entities?" It is the different answers to this last question that leads to the world's different religions and belief systems.
I really like this argument, but I've been talking through it with some people today and I think we discovered a pretty brutal flaw I hadn't seen before. It goes like this: 1. Suppose the BCCF is sufficiently explained by necessary fact E. 2. Suppose sufficient explanation isn't logically equivalent to entailment but something modally weaker, like "possible entailment". 2A. It must be at least possible entailment because no one would accept an explanation where the thing being explained is impossible if thing doing the explaining is true. 3. Whether E entails the BCCF is then contingently true, i.e. "E entails the BCCF" is now a contingent fact. 4. Every contingent fact has an explanation. 5. There must now be some necessary fact E2 that explains E's entailing or not entailing the BCCF for any BCCF C. Repeat 1-5 for All Ei, until a necessary fact N is found whose entailing the sequence of Ei is a necessary and not a contingent entailment. CA. If no such N exists, then the BCCF is explained by an infinite regress of necessary facts. If C is chosen as the conclusion, then modal collapse is a huge problem because we have as a necessary fact that N entails Ek. But Ek was a contingent fact about whether Ek entails Ek-1. But if the entailment or lack thereof of Ek is now necessary, the entailed status of Ek-1 through Ek is now necessary. Repeat down the chain, and summarize by: N necessarily entails the Ei chain which determine the entailment of the BCCF for any BCCF WLOG. If CA is chosen, modal collapse is avoided. BUT we have an infinite sequence of necessary facts (refuting oneness). But if we were happy with an infinite sequence of facts being the ultimate explanation in the first place, why not just stop at a BCCF? The only difference is that we call the Ei necessary vs contingent facts, but they behave in explanation in the precise manner. Indeed, the fact that all of them are necessary is more problematic for the Theist who wants a unique necessary fact / cause. I may have to abandon the argument. :(
Mediator Media 2 and 2A are extremely suspect to me. Especially since the contingency argument does not in any way, shape or form depend on the idea that the Necessary Being can possibly entail the existence of a contingent reality, or the truth of BCCF. It just requires an explanation (or a possible explanation) for BCCF. If you think this must involve the possibility of an entailment, that is very controversial - I don't think an explanation needs to (even possibly) entail anything that is explained. Are you familiar with Alexander Pruss's work? He has written extensively on this subject. Not to be rude, but your objection seems to me pretty shitty. Most defenders of the contigency argument could just accept there is a necessary foundation for reality because of PSR, and since they take PSR to be far more secure than your argument, they can just perform a Moorean shift against your argument, even if they don't share my intuitions about 2 and 2A being false.
@@mordec1016 how can X explain Y if X's being true makes Y impossible? Can you give me an example where this is the case? Even Pruss's example of a dog wagging its tail is consistent with this. To explain why a dog wags its tail, one doesn't need to know the exact cause. One just needs a stimuli such that a dog, when exposed, COULD wag its tail.
You can still hold to the argument from contingency without adopting a modal principle of sufficient reason. Whatever fundamental reality is left if contingent reality doesn’t exist is necessary. That follows regardless of modal principles of adopt. I argue this here: m.ruclips.net/video/nNkdKFbszUE/видео.html
@@logos8312 "2A. It must be at least possible entailment because no one would accept an explanation where the thing being explained is impossible if thing doing the explaining is true" It doesn´t follow from an explanan x not implying the impossibility of an explanandum y that possibly x entails y. And I´ts not obviously true that (for any x and any y) an explanan x possibly entails its explanandum y (plausibly false). But even if it did, possibly x entails y is not contingent but necessary, in modal system S5, namely it is necessary, that possibly x entails y. And even if it wasn´t the case, that it wasn´t necessary (but it is), Pruss and Rasmussen answer this type (the correct formulation) of objection in their Book Necessary Existence. I suggest not to abandon the argument but hone further your logical reasoning, and read more about it (playfully meant, but still meant). I hope this helps. (Note: I´m taking entail here to mean material implication, because, if it is taken to be strict logical implication, that possibly x entails y, just is that necessarily x implies y -- x entails y, and that´s just false.)
I have first seen him on Muhammad Hijab's show ,he is really a smart dude I really like him and this argument ( contingency argument ) is my favourite one
The first thing to be resolved is whether we are looking for an explanation. All the recondite godless arguments depend on a flight from explanation. The most plausible reason for this is they don't like the only plausible explanation.
a conceptual problem merely. Breaking a process into sub-processes will of course yield infinity. But it's the analysis not the reality that is infinite. Infinite series in mathematics can be computed , have a LIMIT approaching infinity.
1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him - 1 Cor 15:8. 2. The appearance to Paul was a personal "vision" or "revelation" from heaven - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19. 3. Paul uses his vision/revelation from heaven as a "resurrection appearance" - 1 Cor 15:5-8. 4. Therefore, visions/revelations from heaven counted as "resurrection appearances." If Paul can use a personal/subjective "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 then it necessarily follows that early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "revelations" from heaven (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as evidence of the Resurrected Christ "appearing" to them. Think about that for a moment. We can then proceed with the following argument: 1. Early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "visions/revelations" as "resurrection appearances." 2. Personal/subjective claims of visions/revelations don't necessarily have anything to do with reality. 3. Therefore, early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims that didn't necessarily have anything to with reality as "resurrection appearances." Obviously, you can see the problem now which calls into question the whole basis of the Christian faith. www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/cchjqz/a_logical_argument_which_demonstrates_the/
@@davidpenner28 If you're addressing me, let me repeat my question to you: how do you think life originated? The first question to answer is "is there a God" before we wonder if Jesus is His Son, etc.
Stephanie Benson Logical deduction is not the only way to come to certain conclusions, personal experience can do the trick too. For example, if i were asked, “where did you get dinner Tuesday?” I would use my memory to pull back the experience and answer correctly “iHop.” Which is a process which did not rely on a sort of objective mechanism. Similarly, people’s eye witness testimonies are a reliable foundation for a faith, particularly, because we have the right to assume that people’s cognitive faculties are reliable. Given the large amount of testimonies on the resurrection of Christ, it’s more plausible that Christianity is true, than that many people’s cognitive faculties are unreliable, since cognitive reliability is necessary to presuppose if one wants to prove Christianity as false.
@@RadicOmega Sorry, but the "eyewitnessing" doesn't really count if it's based on personal visionary experiences that didn't have anything to do with reality.
@@20july1944 so you just defined reality as experience. That is aleady problematic. The question what is outside of reality is meaningless in that case. Can you say solipsism?
@@mysticmouse7261 Yes, I defined YOUR personal reality as defined by YOUR experience. E.g., are we living in a material reality or a matrix? Does it matter? Let's say we live in God's simulation (I see a few reasons to believe that is true). Do you care if you are a *simulation* with emotions and a nervous system, or a *mammal* with emotions and a nervous system? I don't, but that's my personal decision -- not an analytical point.
@@20july1944 how conveniently post-modern. Truth being a matter of choice. Dissolves all tje philosophical discussions about necessary being which is a royal pain in the ass. Millennial nerds chattering way yawn
@@mysticmouse7261 I didn't say truth is a matter of choice. I said I don't choose to worry about metaphysics beyond my personal welfare. I don't care if I'm a REAL human with emotions and a nervous system OR a SIMULATED human with emotions and a nervous system. Maybe you're far more insightful and introspective than I am on this.
Might i add tho that christianity is SUCH a farago of nonsense that even if by some bizarre mischance it DID turn out to be true we could in no way be held responsible for not believing in it. Congrats on yr 10k subs tho.
Having a "secret argument" for god's existence that you can only hear if you pay Cameron some money is so incredibly immoral. It makes it seem like this is more about money than helping people achieve salvation.
What is your cosmology? What do you THINK happened before the BB? Do you think it was a singularity of infinite temperature and density (as the equations imply)?
@@20july1944 That has nothing to do with my comment, but I'll bite. In my opinion that's a lot like asking "what do you THINK the cure to cancer is?". We don't know. I hope we'll know one day and I strongly support thinking about these topics and discussing them until we do know.
Weight of argument is not a proof, by definition. All you are left with is a subjective judgment, which is not good enough. I have a subjective feeling that the riemann hypothesis is true, but this is not any use to a mathematician. Not good enough by a long way. Your incredulity that there might NOT be an uncaused being of some kind does not a proof make! Neither does anything else you say here.
You deserve it man! Congratulations!
Congrats bro! This is just the beginning. Continue the great work.
I hope Dr Rasmussen's channel blows up, man. he is such a smart guy.
also, you should really post a link to his youtube, dude.
i know im randomly asking but does any of you know of a method to get back into an Instagram account..?
I somehow lost the account password. I would love any help you can give me!
@Alfredo Gage Instablaster =)
@Lucca Francis I really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and im trying it out atm.
Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Lucca Francis It did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. Im so happy!
Thanks so much, you saved my account :D
@Alfredo Gage happy to help :D
Congratulations from Norway 🎉🎉
Congratulations Cameron. Greetings from Japan. Love the channel!
Great topic, God bless!!!
From 10K to 62k in one year. You’re doing great broski
Wow. Josh Rasmussen blew me away. His joy about his subject is infectious!
This video is much, much deeper than it appears at first. The content has tremendous implications. Great video.
And now over 87,000! Much deserved! Great content! One of my favorite channels on RUclips! One of favorite things to watch, period.
2 years later, 108k subscribers
Congratulations Cameron!
Congratulations!
Words and ideas are wonderful in their capacity to be used to construct ‘things’ that may not even exist in any world, except in the imagination, whatever that is.
I’ve always been somewhat on the fence about the argument from contingency. Heard many debates about it but never interacted with an atheist to see if I properly understand what their argument against its validity is. Well, now I have - its currently the 216! reply post below this one. I’ll save you the trouble of reading it - the atheist needs to deny that we have knowledge of anything to say they make no claims. This is how far they have to go to deny the first premise of the argument. Since I don’t behave and live in a reality where I can’t assume safely some fundamental foundations to knowledge - this has made me way more confident that the argument supports God’s existence than before!
Now, 8 months later, you're at 3 times as much!!!!
As of this date 7/19/21 now it's at 103K subs? Perseverance pays off.
Words about words
Hi Cameron! Can you please debate Stephen Woodford on the Kalam instead of making part two and part three of your series. He has made a response to you. It would be good if you accept his offer of the debate. I shall be looking forward to it!
Funny watching this now and hearing you talking about reaching 10,000 subs, whilst you currently have over 107,000 subs.
There are 2 options for explaining the existence of the totality of the seemingly contingent things: (1) there’s a reason for its existence (the totality is necessary). (2) there’s no reason (the totality is brute). I’m wondering where does the argument help one prefer one option over the other ?
Well, the totality of contingent things only exists through the existence of its members. But, all of its members are contingent and can fail to exist. So, the totality must also be contingent and can fail to exist. So, the explanation of the totality must be in some external principle or cause. But, if the explanation is outside the totality of contingent things, that means that the explanation must be in terms of a necessary existent. So, the explanation of the totality of contingent things is a necessary existent.
@@anonymousperson1904 this commits the fallacy of composition. Just because all the members are contingent that doesn't mean the whole is too. All the bricks of a wall are light yet the wall is heavy.
@@philosophyofreligion "All the bricks of a wall are light yet the wall is heavy."
The fallacy of composition is not always a fallacy. If all the individual bricks in the wall are red, then the whole wall will also be red. So, it is not always a fallacy. So, the question is if there is a fallacy of composition here. There is not. The reason is because if you add a whole bunch of contingent things up, you don't get a necessary thing, you get an even more contingent thing. Furthermore, the totality of contingent things exists though its members. So, the totality depends on its members. But, all of its members are contingent and can fail to exist. So, it follows that the totality itself, since it exists through and depends on its members, must also be contingent and can fail to exist.
@@anonymousperson1904 The fallacy is committed when it's claimed that it has to be the case that when a property applies to parts of a whole then it applies to the whole as well.Also,following you one can say "the weight of the wall is dependant on the weight of its bricks ,if they're light then so is it?".But that's wrong. Remember, someone who opposes the argument could just insist that the case of the totality is more like that of the weight of the wall than its color. But setting all this to one side and assuming the totality is contingent, the opponent could just opt for brute contingency rather than necessity. If it's said that it's special pleading to require an explanation for contingent individual members but not for contingent wholes, then the answer is that wholes are relevantly different than parts and if experience supports the PSR for the former than it doesn't for the latter.
It seems to me that a conjunction of contingent propositions is contingent in virtue of how a conjunctive logical operator preserves truth.
If A is contingently true and B is contingently true, then considering the proposition "A & B" would yield that it too must be contingently true, inheriting the contingency from its members. If A were otherwise, A: T -> F. F & ? = F and so the whole proposition is now false. Repeat for B.
By induction, if we have an indexed set of an infinite number of contingent propositions as conjuncts, the whole conjunction, again, must be contingent by replicating the above property by induction.
I believe this argument is greatly flawed (see my comment to the vid) but I don't think this is it. This seems to me to be one of the least controversial premises.
Argument from Contingency:
Premise 1: Every CONTINGENT thing must have a cause.
Premise 2: However, existence cannot consist of only contingent things. If everything is contingent, then A's existence depends on B, B's existence depends on C, C's depends D, and so on and so forth ( either for infinity or going back to A), then nothing could have started and existed in the first place.
Premise 3: Yet, here we are existing and kicking, surrounded by all kinds of other contingent things.
Premise 4 - conclusion : Therefore, there has to be an independent non-contingent entity that (at least) jump-started the whole process. Aristotle called such entity the Uncaused First Cause, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Mover.
Various traditions give different names for this same independent non-contingent entity (ie. the Uncaused Cause, Undesigned Designer, Uncreated Creator , Unmoved Mover, Unsustained Sustainer, Unterminated Terminator): Theos in Greek, Deus in Latin, Brahman in Sanskirt, Allah in Arabic, Alaha in Aramaic, El in Hebrew, God in English, Tuhan in Malay, Tengri in Turco-Mongol, Shang-ti in Chinese, etc.
Despite the differences and variations of the world's various great religions, at the most fundamental level they all agree upon the existence of the above independent non-contingent entity.
The question indeed is not whether the independent non-contingent entity (God) exist or not; the fact that we and all other contingent things exist is indeed the evidence of the existence of the independent non-contingent entity, for without the latter the contingent entities would not have existed in the first place.
But the question is rather " how is the nature and the attribute of such independent non-contingent entity and how does such entity manifest and relate to the contingent entities?"
It is the different answers to this last question that leads to the world's different religions and belief systems.
16:24
I really like this argument, but I've been talking through it with some people today and I think we discovered a pretty brutal flaw I hadn't seen before. It goes like this:
1. Suppose the BCCF is sufficiently explained by necessary fact E.
2. Suppose sufficient explanation isn't logically equivalent to entailment but something modally weaker, like "possible entailment".
2A. It must be at least possible entailment because no one would accept an explanation where the thing being explained is impossible if thing doing the explaining is true.
3. Whether E entails the BCCF is then contingently true, i.e. "E entails the BCCF" is now a contingent fact.
4. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
5. There must now be some necessary fact E2 that explains E's entailing or not entailing the BCCF for any BCCF
C. Repeat 1-5 for All Ei, until a necessary fact N is found whose entailing the sequence of Ei is a necessary and not a contingent entailment.
CA. If no such N exists, then the BCCF is explained by an infinite regress of necessary facts.
If C is chosen as the conclusion, then modal collapse is a huge problem because we have as a necessary fact that N entails Ek. But Ek was a contingent fact about whether Ek entails Ek-1. But if the entailment or lack thereof of Ek is now necessary, the entailed status of Ek-1 through Ek is now necessary. Repeat down the chain, and summarize by: N necessarily entails the Ei chain which determine the entailment of the BCCF for any BCCF WLOG.
If CA is chosen, modal collapse is avoided. BUT we have an infinite sequence of necessary facts (refuting oneness). But if we were happy with an infinite sequence of facts being the ultimate explanation in the first place, why not just stop at a BCCF? The only difference is that we call the Ei necessary vs contingent facts, but they behave in explanation in the precise manner. Indeed, the fact that all of them are necessary is more problematic for the Theist who wants a unique necessary fact / cause.
I may have to abandon the argument. :(
If I'm more concise, people ask for proofs and arguments for my assertions. If i make arguments, people tell me to be more concise. I can't win. :(
Mediator Media 2 and 2A are extremely suspect to me. Especially since the contingency argument does not in any way, shape or form depend on the idea that the Necessary Being can possibly entail the existence of a contingent reality, or the truth of BCCF. It just requires an explanation (or a possible explanation) for BCCF. If you think this must involve the possibility of an entailment, that is very controversial - I don't think an explanation needs to (even possibly) entail anything that is explained. Are you familiar with Alexander Pruss's work? He has written extensively on this subject.
Not to be rude, but your objection seems to me pretty shitty. Most defenders of the contigency argument could just accept there is a necessary foundation for reality because of PSR, and since they take PSR to be far more secure than your argument, they can just perform a Moorean shift against your argument, even if they don't share my intuitions about 2 and 2A being false.
@@mordec1016 how can X explain Y if X's being true makes Y impossible? Can you give me an example where this is the case?
Even Pruss's example of a dog wagging its tail is consistent with this. To explain why a dog wags its tail, one doesn't need to know the exact cause. One just needs a stimuli such that a dog, when exposed, COULD wag its tail.
You can still hold to the argument from contingency without adopting a modal principle of sufficient reason. Whatever fundamental reality is left if contingent reality doesn’t exist is necessary. That follows regardless of modal principles of adopt.
I argue this here:
m.ruclips.net/video/nNkdKFbszUE/видео.html
@@logos8312 "2A. It must be at least possible entailment because no one would accept an explanation where the thing being explained is impossible if thing doing the explaining is true"
It doesn´t follow from an explanan x not implying the impossibility of an explanandum y that possibly x entails y.
And I´ts not obviously true that (for any x and any y) an explanan x possibly entails its explanandum y (plausibly false).
But even if it did, possibly x entails y is not contingent but necessary, in modal system S5, namely it is necessary, that possibly x entails y.
And even if it wasn´t the case, that it wasn´t necessary (but it is), Pruss and Rasmussen answer this type (the correct formulation) of objection in their Book Necessary Existence.
I suggest not to abandon the argument but hone further your logical reasoning, and read more about it (playfully meant, but still meant).
I hope this helps.
(Note: I´m taking entail here to mean material implication, because, if it is taken to be strict logical implication, that possibly x entails y, just is that necessarily x implies y -- x entails y, and that´s just false.)
I have first seen him on Muhammad Hijab's show ,he is really a smart dude I really like him and this argument ( contingency argument ) is my favourite one
The first thing to be resolved is whether we are looking for an explanation. All the recondite godless arguments depend on a flight from explanation. The most plausible reason for this is they don't like the only plausible explanation.
100k live stream with Josh? 😀
4 years later 210k subscribers
I've always thought a brute fact has no explanation because it can't have one even in principle.
a conceptual problem merely. Breaking a process into sub-processes will of course yield infinity. But it's the analysis not the reality that is infinite. Infinite series in mathematics can be computed , have a LIMIT approaching infinity.
1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him - 1 Cor 15:8.
2. The appearance to Paul was a personal "vision" or "revelation" from heaven - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19.
3. Paul uses his vision/revelation from heaven as a "resurrection appearance" - 1 Cor 15:5-8.
4. Therefore, visions/revelations from heaven counted as "resurrection appearances."
If Paul can use a personal/subjective "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 then it necessarily follows that early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "revelations" from heaven (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as evidence of the Resurrected Christ "appearing" to them. Think about that for a moment.
We can then proceed with the following argument:
1. Early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "visions/revelations" as "resurrection appearances."
2. Personal/subjective claims of visions/revelations don't necessarily have anything to do with reality.
3. Therefore, early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims that didn't necessarily have anything to with reality as "resurrection appearances."
Obviously, you can see the problem now which calls into question the whole basis of the Christian faith. www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/cchjqz/a_logical_argument_which_demonstrates_the/
How do you think life originated, Stephanie?
Are you asserting that you’re so clever that magic is the only possible explanation for things you don’t understand?
@@davidpenner28 If you're addressing me, let me repeat my question to you:
how do you think life originated?
The first question to answer is "is there a God" before we wonder if Jesus is His Son, etc.
Stephanie Benson Logical deduction is not the only way to come to certain conclusions, personal experience can do the trick too. For example, if i were asked, “where did you get dinner Tuesday?” I would use my memory to pull back the experience and answer correctly “iHop.” Which is a process which did not rely on a sort of objective mechanism. Similarly, people’s eye witness testimonies are a reliable foundation for a faith, particularly, because we have the right to assume that people’s cognitive faculties are reliable. Given the large amount of testimonies on the resurrection of Christ, it’s more plausible that Christianity is true, than that many people’s cognitive faculties are unreliable, since cognitive reliability is necessary to presuppose if one wants to prove Christianity as false.
@@RadicOmega Sorry, but the "eyewitnessing" doesn't really count if it's based on personal visionary experiences that didn't have anything to do with reality.
You didn't add a link to Josh's RUclips channel in the description like you said you would.
🤯
So, what is the secret argument?
what is Rasmussens? channel called?
Worldview Design
Why don't you make some more videos about all your subscribers good luck with that.
Necessary being?
You beg the question about what is real it should be the first question of metaphysics (Aristotle)
Are you real enough to experience pain or pleasure?
Assuming you are, is it necessary to dig deeper on that topic?
@@20july1944 so you just defined reality as experience. That is aleady problematic. The question what is outside of reality is meaningless in that case. Can you say solipsism?
@@mysticmouse7261 Yes, I defined YOUR personal reality as defined by YOUR experience.
E.g., are we living in a material reality or a matrix?
Does it matter?
Let's say we live in God's simulation (I see a few reasons to believe that is true).
Do you care if you are a *simulation* with emotions and a nervous system, or a *mammal* with emotions and a nervous system?
I don't, but that's my personal decision -- not an analytical point.
@@20july1944 how conveniently post-modern. Truth being a matter of choice. Dissolves all tje philosophical discussions about necessary being which is a royal pain in the ass. Millennial nerds chattering way yawn
@@mysticmouse7261 I didn't say truth is a matter of choice.
I said I don't choose to worry about metaphysics beyond my personal welfare.
I don't care if I'm a REAL human with emotions and a nervous system OR a SIMULATED human with emotions and a nervous system.
Maybe you're far more insightful and introspective than I am on this.
Might i add tho that christianity is SUCH a farago of nonsense that even if by some bizarre mischance it DID turn out to be true we could in no way be held responsible for not believing in it.
Congrats on yr 10k subs tho.
Serious question. What is the most blatantly nonsensical thing about Christianity in your opinion?
Please don't use God's name in vain. At around 00:20.
Having a "secret argument" for god's existence that you can only hear if you pay Cameron some money is so incredibly immoral. It makes it seem like this is more about money than helping people achieve salvation.
What is your cosmology?
What do you THINK happened before the BB?
Do you think it was a singularity of infinite temperature and density (as the equations imply)?
@@20july1944 That has nothing to do with my comment, but I'll bite. In my opinion that's a lot like asking "what do you THINK the cure to cancer is?". We don't know. I hope we'll know one day and I strongly support thinking about these topics and discussing them until we do know.
@@SirRulesalot That's great! You're operating on the assumption that God doesn't exist, right?
@@20july1944 I don't think we should act as if something exists until it has been proven to exist.
Paul that’s a bit over the top. A philosophical argument for God isn’t analogous to holding back bible truth from others!
Weight of argument is not a proof, by definition. All you are left with is a subjective judgment, which is not good enough. I have a subjective feeling that the riemann hypothesis is true, but this is not any use to a mathematician. Not good enough by a long way. Your incredulity that there might NOT be an uncaused being of some kind does not a proof make! Neither does anything else you say here.